Bow River Flow

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

That's because it's a valid reason to close the road - which people don't have a problem with.

And a festival isn't?

I still don't buy the argument that the festival was only planned after the closure debate. That's not to say of course, that every detail of the festival was planned, of course not.

They had planning in motion, went to the transportation dept WELL before the date to get the road closures booked, and that's when someone found out and made a big deal out of it, when there really is no big deal.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

That's because it's a valid reason to close the road - which people don't have a problem with.

No, the point is that people can easily get around a road closure to Memorial - a total road closure, not even a partial closure - even if they are not informed of it. Which proves that the Memorial Sunnyside stretch is not as vital a cross-city link as certain city hall politicians made it out to be. Their argument was that the road simply carried too great a volume to be shut down is patently false.

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

And a festival isn't?

I still don't buy the argument that the festival was only planned after the closure debate. That's not to say of course, that every detail of the festival was planned, of course not.

They had planning in motion, went to the transportation dept WELL before the date to get the road closures booked, and that's when someone found out and made a big deal out of it, when there really is no big deal.

As far as I understand from the link Resolute 14 posted, Dru wanted the road closed for every sunday in August so that people could enjoy using the roadways down by the river. There was nothing mentioned about the Bow River Flow festival. If the festival had come forward about wanting the road closures, i would have no issue with it. My issue is that Dru decided that she wanted to do this without any reasoning, at least no public reasoning.

[keratosis]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Also funny to see the "official beer gardens" at Osterio in Kensington. They closed off their entire parking lot, filled it with table and umbrellas. And they had four customers out there.

No parking ,no customers. Who'd a thunk it.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

As far as I understand from the link Resolute 14 posted, Dru wanted the road closed for every Sunday in August so that people could enjoy using the roadways down by the river. There was nothing mentioned about the Bow River Flow festival. If the festival had come forward about wanting the road closures, i would have no issue with it. My issue is that Dru decided that she wanted to do this without any reasoning, at least no public reasoning.

It's likely (probobly certain) that the festival organizers had talked about doing the closure every Sunday afternoon in August. That's why Druh was talking about it that way. The festival may not even have had a name yet at that point.

If you were planning a festival that required a lane closure, and actually was "about" closing lanes for traffic when they aren't needed for traffic (i.e. Sunday afternoon), wouldn't one of the first things you'd do in planning is actually apply for the road lanes in question to be closed? Seems to me like that's the first thing I'd do, or else there's no point in any of the other planning.

Like I've said in the other posts, you don't need "public" reasoning to close down lanes of a road. You just have to go in and pay for it, basically.

The media put a spin on this one back in April/May, and made lots of people believe that this is so unusual. It's not.

And heaven forbid an alderman trying to plan (if she was even involved) a fun event in her ward - a fun event for the whole city that will give people a sense of city pride, and bring a little bit of money to her own ward. If she is involved in planning, it was probably no more then having an idea, and then handing that idea over to others, and giving a little bit of support when required.

I really don't understand the negativity against this one event. If you are against this one event, you've got to be against them all.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

And a festival isn't?

I still don't buy the argument that the festival was only planned after the closure debate.

Pretty much - she asked for the road closure and then tried to figure out what to do with it.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I really don't understand the negativity against this one event. If you are against this one event, you've got to be against them all.

Please.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I really don't understand the negativity against this one event. If you are against this one event, you've got to be against them all.

Again - I'm not sure how this isn't being understood.

People are not against THE EVENT - they are against how the process unfolded.

[Superflyer]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

It's likely (probobly certain) that the festival organizers had talked about doing the closure every Sunday afternoon in August. That's why Druh was talking about it that way. The festival may not even have had a name yet at that point.

If you were planning a festival that required a lane closure, and actually was "about" closing lanes for traffic when they aren't needed for traffic (i.e. Sunday afternoon), wouldn't one of the first things you'd do in planning is actually apply for the road lanes in question to be closed? Seems to me like that's the first thing I'd do, or else there's no point in any of the other planning.

Like I've said in the other posts, you don't need "public" reasoning to close down lanes of a road. You just have to go in and pay for it, basically.

Who plans a festival every Sunday for a month. The best part of a festival is that they come once, not every week. If that is the case you will get very poor turn out over the span of it.

[Yeah_Baby]

This thread is awesome. Its like tax payer and driver against those that either were involved with the "festival" or know someone who was, and continue to defend it but refuse to see the validity of the other side. I love the internet.

[CMPunk]

I have no problem at all with festivals. I don't ever attend any of them, but I'm not going to deny them to the people that do enjoy them. My issues is that this festival wasn't properly communicated to the people of Calgary during this whole debate. All we saw was a self centered alderperson who made it seem like this road closer was all because she wanted it because she thought it would be "fun". If the Bow River Flow committee had just come forward from the beginning and said they wanted the road closure because they were having this festival, I'm sure the public criticism of the event would have been much, much less.

Probably would have helped with advertising as well since I'm thinking alot of people didn't know about it from the reviews I've seen so far.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I really don't understand the negativity against this one event. If you are against this one event, you've got to be against them all.

You've got a collection of logical fallacies going here.

Putting aside the false dilemma of "if you're not my friend, you're my enemy", you clearly are not reading what people are saying.

The festival itself is not what most people are complaining about. The poorly thought out, completely unplanned proposal to close a major route for several weekends by a twit of a council member is what people are upset about. What we are saying is, "show us a need to shut the road down and we will listen". That is not what happened here. Ultimately, this little festival could easily have been carried out without closing the road.

The festival itself was a great idea, and I commend that group for, after the fact, attempting to find a use for this useless closure. But don't kid yourself, Farrell had no clue what to do with the road she wanted shut down for four weekends in a row. None whatsoever.

That is what people are angry with her about. As an alderman, she is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Pretty much - she asked for the road closure and then tried to figure out what to do with it.

And that is pure conjecture on your part. No, it is less than conjecture. I remember at the time her saying in the media exactly what it was for. Perhaps the festival just didn't have a name yet, nor was every little detail planned, but why would anyone expect every detail to have been decided before the location was finalized?

Also:
From the FAQs on the festival's website:

Why not just use the pathway?

First: If you ride a bike, for health, environmental, or financial reasons, downtown riding is often terrifying. Bicycles need dedicated lanes on the road so they're safe and so that the slower pathways are also safe. the The Bow River Flow will help show that cars aren't the only transportation on our roads. In the 2006 study, a quarter of cyclists had been in an accident in the past two years.

Second: Another reason for this event to be on the road is that Memorial can handle 3,000 cars\hr and on a sunday there are 850\hr. There's a cyclist every seven seconds at busy times on the pathways and our neighbourhood is one of the busiest. Sunday is the day of lightest traffic on Memorial Dr. While the paths are jammed with platoons of 30 at a time running clubs (hats off to them!), Memorial Dr. is least used of any day of the week. We've got dog walkers, roller bladers and skaters all sharing the pathway with strollers and toddlers.

Third: Memorial Drive is beautiful now and only going to get better. Calgarians are proud of the Stephen Avenue pedestrian mall and the Bow River Flow adds a non-commercialized pedestrian mall to the list of Calgary's events. We're looking forward to seeing dogs dressed up as clowns and little kids dressed up as superheros and fairies marching together down Memorial Dr.

Finally: This event will get more Calgarians out on our pathways encouraging us all to get some sun, stay fit, and visit with neighbours.

If there ever was a reason for a festival to be every Sunday, this is it. It's for no other reason than to let more people enjoy the space along the river. It's not so that the place can be packed every week, it's trying to encourage more people to come out more often. That's why it probably was envisioned as happening on four consecutive weeks.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I remember at the time her saying in the media exactly what it was for.

As noted in the story I posted above, Farrell had no clue what was to be done. She just wanted to close the road, because it would be "fun". Take the road away from motorists and give it to pedestrians and cyclists.

I'll give you credit for trying, but there really isn't an explanation for the level of idiocy Farrell's original idea represented.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The poorly thought out, completely unplanned proposal to close a major route for several weekends by a twit of a council member is what people are upset about.

It's time for your side of the argument to back up this assertion. Common sense tells all of us that they were trying to close lanes because something was already being planned.

You've got a collection of logical fallacies going here.

How so? I've explained the process, this festival isn't any different than any other one, other than the fact that its new.

But don't kid yourself, Farrell had no clue what to do with the road she wanted shut down for four weekends in a row. None whatsoever

. Nonsense, as I already explained. She said at the time of the debate that it was for a place to let people walk along the roads, so more people could come out, AS OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE. Sure, it's not an urgent reason to shut down a road, but neither is any other festival.

The festival itself was a great idea, and I commend that group for, after the fact, attempting to find a use for this useless closure.

Evidence please, that it only occurred after the fact.

That is not what happened here. Ultimately, this little festival could easily have been carried out without closing the road.

How could a festival that's about opening roads to bikes and pedestrains when the lanes aren't needed proceed without without closing lanes?

[The Fonz]

Could someone sum all of this up for me? I don't live in Calgary, nor do I know who this Druh Farrell is, and I've been away/busy for a while. Not exactly sure what is going on here...

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

And that is pure conjecture on your part. No, it is less than conjecture. I remember at the time her saying in the media exactly what it was for. Perhaps the festival just didn't have a name yet, nor was every little detail planned, but why would anyone expect every detail to have been decided before the location was finalized?.

Nothing was finalized in terms of details.

If you are closing down a major road you SHOULD have a fairly concrete plan in place before doing so.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As noted in the story I posted above, Farrell had no clue what was to be done. She just wanted to close the road, because it would be "fun". Take the road away from motorists and give it to pedestrians and cyclists.

Just read the article again, I don't get any of that sense from the article, that she just wanted it closed because it would be fun.

Originally Posted by the article

Farrell said she took the idea, inspired by similar shut-downs in cities like Rome and Chicago, to the experts at the city's transportation department.

Obviously, this would have happened, before anyone in the media heard about the idea. It sounds like she had an idea, copied from other cities which have done similar things, and started pursuing it.

Originally Posted by Article

She was told Memorial Dr. sees an average of 850 cars per hour on a Sunday, while a half-closed road could still handle 1,500 cars an hour.

That being the case, Farrell believes Memorial, with a river setting, is the ideal location.

"It's the slowest part of summertime, so I thought, let's try something new," said Farrell.

"I mean, we're talking about four Sundays, for Pete's sake -- can we just try it, and maybe have some fun, and see if it works."

To me, that doesn't sound like she was pursuing the closure "just for fun", of course, that's not to say that the event wasn't planned to be a fun event. It also doesn't sound to me that nothing was planned before the closures were talked about, as you and others have insinuated. It sounds like to me that quite a bit had been planned, and of course, lot of other things remained to be planned after the location was finalized - which required the closure to be finalized.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

It's time for your side of the argument to back up this assertion. Common sense tells all of us that they were trying to close lanes because something was already being planned.

Already done with the Sun article above. No mention of a festival, not even the concept of one. Just a "lets close the road four times and see what happens."

You are also assuming common sense from someone considered one of the worst aldermen in the city, which is a pretty big stretch.

Seriously, if it even existed in anyone's mind at the time, all Farrell had to do was say "We're envisioning closing Memorial to hold a new festival." THAT is the common sense thing to do.

And if she had, there would still be people bitching about the road closure regardless, but more people would have been asking "what kind of festival?"

She had no idea what she would do with the open road, she just knew she wanted it closed to traffic. Her very own comments prove this out.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Nothing was finalized in terms of details.

If you are closing down a major road you SHOULD have a fairly concrete plan in place before doing so.

Having a concrete plan in place doesn't mean that every detail needs to be finalized. Obviously, you can't finalize details until the location is guaranteed, hence the closure application.